5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best - Page 2




 
--
 
January 30th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
OOPS sorry my point was, often compromises are simply the best way to go. The same applies with this new type of ammo.
January 30th, 2005  
EuroSpike
 
"EuroSpike, if you have to march cross country with that thing, I think you'd rather have the 5.56mm. Not to mention, you can't make your army out of 2m tall Viking Warriors who are 200kg of solid muscle.
You can carry much more ammo with the 5.56mm and once the fighting hits the streets, believe me, you'd want a weapon that can go automatic."

No need to carry so much ammunition one time that weight increases too heavy. Usually we (finnish) are issued with 2x90 = 180rounds. Company's ammo squad has more rounds to supply troops needing more.

"The Finns used the submachinegun with deadly effect in the close quarters of the forests."

Yes so does RKs but 5.56 bullet has proven to be too light to use in covered terrain, the matter of compromiss, and autofire with 7.62x39 RK is not hard to handle, and short 2-3rnd burst are the best way to shoot autofire and allows better firecontrol.

IMHO i prefer semiauto because every shot is controlled and firerate is as fast as you pull the trigger. Not difficult at all when trained and firing all 5.56-7.62 are like toyguns. Weight of weapon influences to recoil. More weight -> less recoil, less weight -> more recoil. Lower weight of many 5.56 rifles disable major advantage to 7.62x39 rifles in recoil.

"Are aimed, single shots preferred? Absolutely. Is it ALWAYS the best option? No."

No but well controlled fire is, wich means almost or halfly aimed shots. Look at for example IPSC shooters and how they can shoot with semiauto and they even hit.
January 30th, 2005  
EagleZtrike
 
 
I prefer the 7.62 can do more damage. I find the guns that carry that caliber also are more reliable like the AK series.
--
January 31st, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
AK's have to much kick and recoil and aren't accurate after the first shot.

Guns and Ammo Magazine did a artilce on the 6.3mm round, it was made by SF dudes so that they have more stopping power same reason why they use .45 ASP instead of 9mm.

I like that it can adapt to AR15 and M16 weapon types, seems good to me. Can use the same mag as the 5.56mm but less rounds.
January 31st, 2005  
Sea_Cadet
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Airman Adam Seaman
The M-14 was 7.62mm and was put out of service becasue the round had to much kick and the weapon to heavy.

And we have 5.56mm because its NATO standard. M16 fit into AUG's.
there are two NATO standard rounds 7.62 and 5.56
January 31st, 2005  
r031Button
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Airman Adam Seaman
The M-14 was 7.62mm and was put out of service becasue the round had to much kick and the weapon to heavy.

And we have 5.56mm because its NATO standard. M16 fit into AUG's.
there are two NATO standard rounds 7.62 and 5.56
I think the main point was that most of NATO uses a standard 5.56mm Mag; so when the Warsaw Pact comes throught he fulda gap, Brits can use German mags.
February 1st, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
I've heard a lot of good things about the 6x45 round. More sectional density means more damage at longer range than the 5.56. The 5.56 fired out of the stubby m4 only gives you real damage out to 150 meters! The 6MM should extend this range quite a bit. The only parts of a standard m16 or M4 that would have to change is the barrel and optics! Same goes for belt fed weapons...the case is still the 5.56 case - just added a bit more weight and girth to the bullet itself. The grendel is a good choice too...if you are going to 6.8, might as well go to 7.62 - not much different.

If we have to stick with the 5.56, why not just go to the 7.62 Tokarev - smaller round, yet still gives excellent ballisitcs out to 150Meters....with less recoil and you can use the same ammo for sidearm and main weapon!
February 5th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushpig1998
I've heard a lot of good things about the 6x45 round. More sectional density means more damage at longer range than the 5.56. The 5.56 fired out of the stubby m4 only gives you real damage out to 150 meters! The 6MM should extend this range quite a bit. The only parts of a standard m16 or M4 that would have to change is the barrel and optics! Same goes for belt fed weapons...the case is still the 5.56 case - just added a bit more weight and girth to the bullet itself. The grendel is a good choice too...if you are going to 6.8, might as well go to 7.62 - not much different.

If we have to stick with the 5.56, why not just go to the 7.62 Tokarev - smaller round, yet still gives excellent ballisitcs out to 150Meters....with less recoil and you can use the same ammo for sidearm and main weapon!

No 6.8mm and 7.62mm are very different, Guns and Ammo mag did a article on the 6.8mm SPC, it has less kick and recoil and penetrates better. Not only that you would only have to change the upper reciver and mag. 5.56mm is the basic NATO round for assault rifles, thats why all NATO allies have it. 7.62mm Tokarev rounds are to slow and the round to big. We tried 7.62mm once.
February 5th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
What people don't realize is the 7.62mm and the 5.56mm both have their advantages and disadvantages. For one, the 5.56mm actually flies better and penetrates better. Before they made it "too accurate" the 5.56mm had no problems putting that energy into the target because upon impact, the bullet tumbled, transferring the energy extremely effectively. The result were exit wounds the size of a grapefruit (grapefruit, not grape!). This with the superior penetration compared to the 7.62mm. However, the current M-16s... and the current ammo, doesn't tumble the bullet when it impacts. This means the bullet's penetration ability becomes its liability because it just simply glides through the target.
February 6th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
I think that the way warfare has evolved into having highly mobile vehicles, air and land, capable of heavy fire support combining with most ground troops, the need for large rounds fired at great distances are not as important as in the past. Except for special teams such as snipers, battle planning seems to be closing as near as possible with light and heavy armored followed up by rifle teams. That makes the teams able to carry more ammo and do more damage at close range more effective at running gun battles. IMO.